A NEW LOCARNO TREATY?

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 54, 19 March 1937, Page 4

A NEW LOCARNO TREATY?

In tliese days of rapid kaleidoscopic changes, with new figures being cpntinually projeeted on tbe stage, an absence of ten years from before tbe footlights is enougb to mean almost oblivion for even prominent actors of the quite neaj past. Thxs has to a great extent been the case with Sir Austen Chamberlain, of whose death we have this week had ward. Sober-minded history will, however, not neglect hira and in the record of his aohievements as Secretary of State fpr Roreign Affairs the Treaty of Locarno, which he arranged in 1925, will take a forward place. At the time is was regarded as a triumph for honest and straightforward' international diplomacy and as something giving fair assurance of peace, at least in Western Europe. It was carefully drawn in such a way as not to offend against the terms of the Covenant of the League of Nations, of which ®ir Austen has always been a fervent supporter, even in the years since his retirement from public life. It was designed rather to eonfirm and strengthen the Covenant by making more definfte and specifie commitments for the preservation of peace. By it Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Belgium were all bound to respeet territorial boundaries as then established, while each was also bound to come to the assistance of any one of them that might be the victim of unprovoked aggression on the part of any of the others. One of its ebief merits was, of course, the bringing of France and Germany into a closer and more friendly relationship, with Great Britain posing as being equally the friend of both, an attitude whieh she has always striven to maintain, but which it is most difficult to impress upon the minds of either Frenchmen or Germans. But/ like all other treaties of the kind, its whole virtue lay in the continued will of the parties to observe it, and this vitai element proved to be lacking when early last year, in flagrant violation of it, Herr Hitler marched his troops into the Bhine zone which Germany had undertaken should be permanently demilitarised. At the same time Signor Mussolini, in even more flagrant violation of the League Covenant, was deeply engaged in the conquest of Abyssinia and oould, in any event, be in no way reiied upon t6 take active measures against his fellow dictator. In fact, all signs pointed towards his prohably lending him support. Thus all fond hopes of the Locarno Treaty fulfilling its purpose were dashed to the ground. No doubt the latter days of its author were greatly saddened by seeing what had been regarded as one of his finest achievements shown to be futile when essential good faith was wanting on the part of two of the signatories. . Despite all this, however, Great Britain, under the new condit'ions that have now been ereated, has been bent on reviving the treaty, though in somewhat modified form. But there would seem to be very litlte chance of success crowning her efforts. Germany, under Herr Hitler, is obviously determined to commit herself to no principle of '"eollective security" such as has been Britain 's chief aim to establish. He prefers rather to confine nhimself to two-sided pacts of non-aggression with individual neighbouring Powers. There is, of course, no great difficulty in seeing wby he should prefer this plan. Jt is manifest that these bilateral* engagements could be ignored and broken with much greater impunity than a collective treaty that would, or at any rate should, bring combined forces automatically into tbe field against bim. Italy, too, is sbrinking away from renewing her obligations and; by bargaining for impossible conditions, is plainly working with Germany to balk the British purpose. On top of this we we have Belgium also seeking to detach herself from it. She, on her part, would prefer to assume a merely neutral role and to cast the responsibility of enabling her to maintain it upon other .oountries. The prospeets for a new Locarno are thus far from being hright.